I know you guys have commented on the fairness of the trade, but I'm not sure that's an issue here. As Spartans Rule said,

This is not a lopsided trade, but it IS collusion and should be struck down.

The owner said he was offering the trade because he felt sorry for the other guy. He knew it wasn't a good trade, and claiming that he changed his mind is nonsense. This is the definition of collusion.

What I'm saying is that even if this trade were perfectly fair and even, wouldn't it still be collusion? Please help me here as I'm trying to do what's right for the league. Thanks again for all your help already!

cubsfan18

College Coach

Posts: 280

Joined: 11 Apr 2004

Home Cafe: Baseball

Location: At U.S. Cellular cheering for whatever team the White Sox are playing - it doesn't matter which.

It doesnt matter if a trade is made because you felt sorry for someone, Ive made trades for all kinds of reasons

collusion is one one team is trading away talent to another team that is CLEARLY lopsided. Team A trades Beltran to team B for Rick Ankiel -- that would be struck down. If you want to screw yourself over by offering a semi-unfair trade then that should be fine. As long as this is two seperate owners (and not the same owner on team A and team B -- which is the most common instance of collusion) then you cant strike it down.

This is not collusion, just a slightly unfair trade for interesting reasons. Perhaps he even wants the league to be more competitive during the year. This just simply does not amount to collusion.

cubsfan18 wrote:I know you guys have commented on the fairness of the trade, but I'm not sure that's an issue here. As Spartans Rule said,

This is not a lopsided trade, but it IS collusion and should be struck down.

The owner said he was offering the trade because he felt sorry for the other guy. He knew it wasn't a good trade, and claiming that he changed his mind is nonsense. This is the definition of collusion.

What I'm saying is that even if this trade were perfectly fair and even, wouldn't it still be collusion? Please help me here as I'm trying to do what's right for the league. Thanks again for all your help already!

No this is not collusion IMO.

Here's the definition of collusion from the dictionary (go figure):

A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.

There is nothing deceitful about this trade from the info you provided. The one team has been very open and honest with you. It's a bad trade but in no way deceitful. The worst thing you can do to a league as a Commish is to begin vetoing trades. IME it's the quicket way to kill a league so only do it if absolutely necessary.

Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey

SHOCKandAWE wrote:Is it collusion or you being biased because you wish you had a chance at Beltran and could have offered him more?

I agree with Shock here... Nothing worse than being in a league with a "Bitter" or "Jealous" Commish... Take a step back, and realize..Your never gonna agree with what everyone else in your league thinks, or feels about players... That doesn't constitute "Cheating" and that is a "Dangerous" line to cross..should be VERY, VERY, careful when making those accusations...

cubsfan18 wrote:I know you guys have commented on the fairness of the trade, but I'm not sure that's an issue here. As Spartans Rule said,

This is not a lopsided trade, but it IS collusion and should be struck down.

The owner said he was offering the trade because he felt sorry for the other guy. He knew it wasn't a good trade, and claiming that he changed his mind is nonsense. This is the definition of collusion.

What I'm saying is that even if this trade were perfectly fair and even, wouldn't it still be collusion? Please help me here as I'm trying to do what's right for the league. Thanks again for all your help already!

Funny you agree with the one person who supports your opinion on this matter... Why ask opinions, if you already have your mind made up?

To call this "Collusion" is stretching the "TRUE" meaning of the word to support your arguement... According to your post, they never admitted they knew each other, and were helping one another, or only one team win, and get the edge..which would be the meaning of "Collusion"... (How is that for a sentence )

cubsfan18 wrote:I know you guys have commented on the fairness of the trade, but I'm not sure that's an issue here. As Spartans Rule said,

This is not a lopsided trade, but it IS collusion and should be struck down.

The owner said he was offering the trade because he felt sorry for the other guy. He knew it wasn't a good trade, and claiming that he changed his mind is nonsense. This is the definition of collusion.

What I'm saying is that even if this trade were perfectly fair and even, wouldn't it still be collusion? Please help me here as I'm trying to do what's right for the league. Thanks again for all your help already!

No this is not collusion IMO.

Here's the definition of collusion from the dictionary (go figure):

A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.

There is nothing deceitful about this trade from the info you provided. The one team has been very open and honest with you. It's a bad trade but in no way deceitful. The worst thing you can do to a league as a Commish is to begin vetoing trades. IME it's the quicket way to kill a league so only do it if absolutely necessary.

Well if you want to use that definition, I could post on my league message board: "I'm trading Pujols, Bonds and Sheets to the best team in the league for Chris Reitsma. I'm doing so because I hate everyone in the league and I want to ruin all your seasons," and that wouldn't be collusion. It isn't anymore secret, fraudulent, illegal or deceitful than the trade in this thread, because I'm being open and honest about it.

A team making a trade that it believes is to its own detriment should NOT be allowed. Period.

Well that is the definition. It's not about choice. I understand that the "I feel bad for him" is grey area but I think that's a far stretch from "I hate everyone in the league and I want to ruin all your seasons".

My main point is that this trade isn't that disruptive whatever the motives are. Maybe they should seriously consider finding a replacement owner because the guy doesn't seem competitive.

Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey

I agree with the majority here. The bottom line is that the trade isn't that bad. I mean, even if it were collusion, if it is struck down, other teams in the league are going to think you're a jealous commish who wanted to make a better offer. If he hadn't told you he felt bad for the other guy, would you have let the trade go through? I wouldn't force the teams to re-trade unless is was a lopsided trade...just my opinion though. Good luck with it.

Thank you for all of your advice. I have decided not to make them trade back, but instead to let both owners know that they are under a close watch, and if something like this happens again that they will be reprimanded. I appreciate your help!

cubsfan18

College Coach

Posts: 280

Joined: 11 Apr 2004

Home Cafe: Baseball

Location: At U.S. Cellular cheering for whatever team the White Sox are playing - it doesn't matter which.

I think you made a good decision there Cubs. In my opinion this was a clear case of collusion initially as stated by Owner A- collusion being defined (in the fantasy baseball connotation, not Amazinz's dictionary definition) of any trade being made for reasons either outside of the fantasy league and/or without the intent of bettering your team/your team's chances of winning.

That said, it isn't a ridiculous trade, and more importantly, I could see the true intentions/thought process of owner A being- "I think Beltran is gonna suck it up. This looks like a deal that would help my team in some positions I need. If I deal Beltran, everyone is gonna say I'm stupid. I don't think this is the best trade, but I'm happy with it- let's find a way to make it fly."

I've found in many leagues that dealing one superstar for another is almost impossible- if you want to move a superstar you have to accept two 2nd-tier superstars as often as not, hence Thome and Foulke, two guys who are first tier guys at their positions, but not first round superstars.

Then he tells you he's doing it cause he feels bad, hoping you let it fly without saying, "haha you're a fool."

Most importantly, it's not a gross violation of no-collusion rules, and a veto could cause decreased league activity, commish-hating, and all sorts of anti-fun backlash. As a commish's job is to keep things as fair and as fun for all involved, letting this slide with a warning was probably the best way to deal with it